Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Sword Blade dates? or Mysterious Gematria?

Jim McDougall · 6th September 2009, 04:43 PM

Excellent example Ray!!! and thank you for these observations. You seem to have a pretty impressive understanding of things European despite the modest note

The running wolf was a profoundly stylized, almost temporal, image which was used and copied widely in almost countless variations. It seems to have almost always been chiselled or placed with chopped, sticklike lines, and these more artlike figures seem more associated with mid 17th into 18th century European blade motif, quite contrary to the 'Passau' wolf.

As Manuel has well noted, the inscription resembles Polish and Hungarian examples of these periods, but this blade, which seems likely a smallsword or court sword type, may well be from a number of European locations. Most interesting is of course the numeric '1514', again seemingly recalling a date year, and in similar number groupings as others discussed.

Thank you Ray and Manuel for coming in on this, and Ray, for sharing this example which is a perfect example of these variations.

Getting back to the idea of these numbers representing date years, I found another reference to the 'ancient sword with date 1414' noted in my previous post suggesting it was a heirloom associated with Huguenot ancestry. In "History of the Huguenot Emigration to America" (Charles Baird, 1885, p.324), this very sword, belonging to a man named Gabriel Bernon, apparantly a prominant Rhode Island resident is mentioned. The author notes that "...this date synchronizes with that of one of the wars of the House of Burgundy, from whom the Bernon's claim to be descended"...referring to the year 1414 and John the Intrepid whose forces destroyed the fort at Tonnere.

Here is an example of the interesting application of spin in associating these numbers with historic events to serve the developed history of a weapon, much as 'family stories' constantly pervade geneological histories. This is not to discount the obvious profound lineage of this, or any other individual with such accounts, but to illustrate the misperception often found with these engraved numbers on sword blades.

It would seem that if these numbers actually were intended to represent such significant dates, that other motif or dates of certain events would be included to corroborate the rather than the singular broadness of an entire year. As an example, Scottish blades often carry patriotic mottos that are associated with the two historic rebellions, well known as simply the '15 and the '45, for their years 1715 and 1745, yet none of the patriotic blades I have seen have either of these years shown. Admittedly, the terms 15 and 45 are clearly broadly stated, against my note on the use of specific date, but I think the example still serves.

An interesting entry was found in "The Wallace Collection", catalogued by the esteemed Sir Guy Francis Laking in 1900, on p.8, where he describes a German hand and a half sword, and discusses the date 1415 which is engraved in the blade which cannot be accepted, noting that "...often sword blades of this type have stamped upon them the number 1414 together with the running wolf mark; with this combination they may be accepted as being the work of the Austrian early 17th century bladesmith Steyr, who added the number 1414 to the running wolf sign, in order that his blade might not be confused with Passau, who had already adopted the running wolf as his stamp. The number 1415 may likewise have reference to the work of Steyr."

* this note seems to correspond well with Kisak's well placed observation on the number and marking perhaps aligning to represent certain makers. While this does not seem to actually be the case, the concept is certainly sound, as perceived by this most esteemed writer.

This is a most puzzling reference (taken from online copy of an apparantly early copy of this catalog, as my 1962 copy seems to be incongruent with paging and examples). The Passau stamp was as far as I know, originally used in of course Passau, so why wouldn't they have 'adopted' it, and the mark was copied in Austria as is well known, so why would this maker be trying to 'protect' it as his own? Why 1414 or 15?

In my copy of the Wallace catalog, p.247 (A475) a German hand and a half c.1620 blade, has the incised running wolf with crudely cut numbers 1415.
Laking notes, "...the numerals 1415 must not be interpreted as a date, but have some other significance". He goes on to note this number on a dagger and 1414, 1441 on numerous other examples at Bern, Schwarzburg, Tower of London and Windsor Castle along with others. He also mentions figures 1469 and 1515.

* just noticed as reading that 1909 catalog was entirely renumbered in 1962.

It would seem at this point fairly well established that these numbers are not dates, and while in some cases associated with certain makers, they appear no more consistant with the makers than the use of other related markings such as the running wolf.

The quest continues

All best regards,
Jim

6th September 2009, 04:43 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,139	Excellent example Ray!!! and thank you for these observations. You seem to have a pretty impressive understanding of things European despite the modest note The running wolf was a profoundly stylized, almost temporal, image which was used and copied widely in almost countless variations. It seems to have almost always been chiselled or placed with chopped, sticklike lines, and these more artlike figures seem more associated with mid 17th into 18th century European blade motif, quite contrary to the 'Passau' wolf. As Manuel has well noted, the inscription resembles Polish and Hungarian examples of these periods, but this blade, which seems likely a smallsword or court sword type, may well be from a number of European locations. Most interesting is of course the numeric '1514', again seemingly recalling a date year, and in similar number groupings as others discussed. Thank you Ray and Manuel for coming in on this, and Ray, for sharing this example which is a perfect example of these variations. Getting back to the idea of these numbers representing date years, I found another reference to the 'ancient sword with date 1414' noted in my previous post suggesting it was a heirloom associated with Huguenot ancestry. In "History of the Huguenot Emigration to America" (Charles Baird, 1885, p.324), this very sword, belonging to a man named Gabriel Bernon, apparantly a prominant Rhode Island resident is mentioned. The author notes that "...this date synchronizes with that of one of the wars of the House of Burgundy, from whom the Bernon's claim to be descended"...referring to the year 1414 and John the Intrepid whose forces destroyed the fort at Tonnere. Here is an example of the interesting application of spin in associating these numbers with historic events to serve the developed history of a weapon, much as 'family stories' constantly pervade geneological histories. This is not to discount the obvious profound lineage of this, or any other individual with such accounts, but to illustrate the misperception often found with these engraved numbers on sword blades. It would seem that if these numbers actually were intended to represent such significant dates, that other motif or dates of certain events would be included to corroborate the rather than the singular broadness of an entire year. As an example, Scottish blades often carry patriotic mottos that are associated with the two historic rebellions, well known as simply the '15 and the '45, for their years 1715 and 1745, yet none of the patriotic blades I have seen have either of these years shown. Admittedly, the terms 15 and 45 are clearly broadly stated, against my note on the use of specific date, but I think the example still serves. An interesting entry was found in "The Wallace Collection", catalogued by the esteemed Sir Guy Francis Laking in 1900, on p.8, where he describes a German hand and a half sword, and discusses the date 1415 which is engraved in the blade which cannot be accepted, noting that "...often sword blades of this type have stamped upon them the number 1414 together with the running wolf mark; with this combination they may be accepted as being the work of the Austrian early 17th century bladesmith Steyr, who added the number 1414 to the running wolf sign, in order that his blade might not be confused with Passau, who had already adopted the running wolf as his stamp. The number 1415 may likewise have reference to the work of Steyr." * this note seems to correspond well with Kisak's well placed observation on the number and marking perhaps aligning to represent certain makers. While this does not seem to actually be the case, the concept is certainly sound, as perceived by this most esteemed writer. This is a most puzzling reference (taken from online copy of an apparantly early copy of this catalog, as my 1962 copy seems to be incongruent with paging and examples). The Passau stamp was as far as I know, originally used in of course Passau, so why wouldn't they have 'adopted' it, and the mark was copied in Austria as is well known, so why would this maker be trying to 'protect' it as his own? Why 1414 or 15? In my copy of the Wallace catalog, p.247 (A475) a German hand and a half c.1620 blade, has the incised running wolf with crudely cut numbers 1415. Laking notes, "...the numerals 1415 must not be interpreted as a date, but have some other significance". He goes on to note this number on a dagger and 1414, 1441 on numerous other examples at Bern, Schwarzburg, Tower of London and Windsor Castle along with others. He also mentions figures 1469 and 1515. * just noticed as reading that 1909 catalog was entirely renumbered in 1962. It would seem at this point fairly well established that these numbers are not dates, and while in some cases associated with certain makers, they appear no more consistant with the makers than the use of other related markings such as the running wolf. The quest continues All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 6th September 2009 at 05:15 PM.